Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[BlueDreams]

 

 

 

Again (for the third time), custody does not matter. If a child's mother has sole custody, and her birth father lives with a boyfriend on the other side of the planet, the child falls under the policy.

 

As for the number of children affected, here's some back of the envelope math:

• The church as 15.3 million members (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics)
• Applying US demongraphics, roughly 25% of the population is under the age of adulthood (0-18) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States)
• 37% of lesbian, gay, or bisexual adults say they have had a child (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Parenting.pdf)
• 2% of the population is gay (this is on the low end; google it)

 

So, as a rough analysis: 15.3 million members x .75 (% of adults) x .02 (percentage of adults who are gay) X .37 (percentage of gay adults who have kids) = appx. 90,000. This is the number of gay LDS adults who have at least one kid. The number of children would be higher because some have multiple kids, sometimes many multiples (that's mormons for you).

 

So, yeah, it's safe to say that 10s of thousands of kids will be affected.

 

ETA: Of course, this is not taking into consideration activity levels. Only about 1/3 of adult members are active. But children and youth tend to be much higher. 

 

You're forgetting an important factor: how much of the gay population is in a cohabitating or marriage relationships. That's the part that's very small numbers...according to here 594,000 partnerships in the U.S. 2010 census data had a similar number...Of those, 115K of these had children. And that's for the whole U.S. population.  If you take 2% of that as mormon (which is the U.S. stat for mormon population and also not including activity level.), that's about 2.300 children. So thousands, yes probably. 10s of thousands....probably not. 

 

But as you mentioned it's not including blended/divorced families. The wording makes me wonder if they were even thinking of such when they made the policy (obvious cultural blinspot). That's why i'm guessing that the actual implimentation of said policy would vary from those who take the hard nose line as you've mentioned. And those who are more merciful, particularly to parents where the ex-partner in question doesn't have primary custody or isn't super involved in their lives.

 

with luv,

BD

[stemelbow]

Why must anyone view the situation with children with gay parent the same as children with polygamous parent? These are not the same situations.

[bluebell]

Why must anyone view the situation with children with gay parent the same as children with polygamous parent? These are not the same situations.

 

They seem to be more same than different.  Can you explain what you believe the differences are?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

A few people here have posited that theory...  but in effect it is not.  Unless of course you read into it.

Children of polygamists don't have to be 18. Children of polygamists don't need FP approval to go on missions, be ordained to the priesthood. Children of polygamists aren't forbidden from living in their parents houses as a condition to get baptized. If you had read the policy you would know this. This is not reading into it. It spells it out in black and white.

[ALarson]

Who is speculating?  Where does the policy address joint custody at all?

 

Hint: it doesn't.

You are speculating when you stated what a child from a same sex relationship would have to say in order to be able to go on a mission. 

 

Why wouldn't this policy affect those children in a joint custody situation when half the time they live in a home where the parents are in a same sex relationship?  Do you think there will be exceptions made?

[california boy]

I am absolutely shocked (that's my fault, I suppose) at the reaction to this. What is so obviously an act of love, compassion and mercy to anyone who is not unreasonable is creating a whole lot of emotional reactions.

 

People are having a hard time with the concept that denying anyone the blessings of church membership is an act of love, compassion and mercy.  To have that attitude, you would have to believe that preventing someone from joining the church would be a negative force in their lives.  It is kinda a new idea that keeping children out of the church is going to help them in their lives as they encounter bad influences even from their parents.  

[Buckeye]

You're forgetting an important factor: how much of the gay population is in a cohabitating or marriage relationships. That's the part that's very small numbers...according to here 594,000 partnerships in the U.S. 2010 census data had a similar number...Of those, 115K of these had children. And that's for the whole U.S. population.  If you take 2% of that as mormon (which is the U.S. stat for mormon population and also not including activity level.), that's about 2.300 children. So thousands, yes probably. 10s of thousands....probably not. 

 

But as you mentioned it's not including blended/divorced families. The wording makes me wonder if they were even thinking of such when they made the policy (obvious cultural blinspot). That's why i'm guessing that the actual implimentation of said policy would vary from those who take the hard nose line as you've mentioned. And those who are more merciful, particularly to parents where the ex-partner in question doesn't have primary custody or isn't super involved in their lives.

 

with luv,

BD

 

Very good points. If I were a bishop I would see the biggest loophole in the word "cohabitate." Does that mean living exclusively together or just staying at each other's place from time to time? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

They seem to be more same than different.  Can you explain what you believe the differences are?

Children of polygamists don't have to be 18. Children of polygamists don't need FP approval to go on missions, be ordained to the priesthood. Children of polygamists aren't forbidden from living in their parents houses as a condition to get baptized.

[KevinG]

You don't need to speculate. You can read the actual policy document. It is attached to several of the news articles. It doesn't leave any gray area or room for interpretation.

 

And yet people are interpreting it as meaning someone with any gay married parent (even if they have another active parent) cannot be baptized as a youth.

 

O.K. I just read it.  The only restriction is that the youth not be living with the gay married parent at the time.  Which is very consistent with not asking a youth to make a serious covenant without the support structure and consistent teaching that are needed to support that covenant.

 

The same restriction that applies to children of Muslim parents, Polygamous parents, and other groups teaching and living in opposition to church doctrine.

 

But no one was freaking out until the gay marriage thing was clarified.

[rockpond]

Some questions-

 

As a bishop, who get's his authority to be such from the church, are they allowed to pick and choose what policies they want to follow?

 

And which scriptures are you referring to and how does it conflict with A of F 2?

 

I've served as a bishop's counselor for years now and have seen plenty of times where decisions have been made to not follow what the handbook says.

 

Regarding scripture and AF2... Children are supposed to be free of their parents sin.

[ALarson]

Children of polygamists don't have to be 18. Children of polygamists don't need FP approval to go on missions, be ordained to the priesthood. Children of polygamists aren't forbidden from living in their parents houses as a condition to get baptized. If you had read the policy you would know this. This is not reading into it. It spells it out in black and white.

Do you have a link to where the policy for children of polygamists is stated?  Or can you post it?  I think it would help to read through it (at least for me).

[rockpond]

The first presidency didn't sneak it into a handbook. It has been basic church policy to excommunicate for homosexual behavior ever since I can remember... nothing new there.

The presidency also immediately responded to the Supreme Court decision in a church-wide statement which can be found here:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision?lang=eng

 

That statement if from June.

 

The FP has not, to my knowledge, made a statement about this change in doctrine and policy other than letting the Newsroom speak on their behalf.

[bluebell]

 

 

 

 

 

People, please read the OP, including the policy itself (bolded this time). A child who has a parent in a SS relationship (married or cohabitating) is barred from baptism, baby blessing, ordination, etc. until she becomes an adult and meets with the SP or MP to (i) disavow her parent's relationship and (ii) seek FP approval for these ordinances. The restrictions kick in simply from the existence of the parent in the relationship. No custody or action by the child matters. 

 

Quote

 

 

 

I've read it.  I don't think it will be applied the same way that you believe it will be applied. 

[Jeanne]

No, it is the opposite imo. It allows them to not agonize over whether or not to be baptized until they are old enough to handle the family dynamics because they are more independent, emotionally mature, etc.

I don't believe it becomes easier at the age of 18, 

[KevinG]

This had reached full ridiculousness.  Those who oppose the church decision can speculate about how the rules will be applied, but those who are faithful Mormons who support the First Presidency and Apostles...  their interpretation of the rule must be proven.

[bluebell]

You are speculating when you stated what a child from a same sex relationship would have to say in order to be able to go on a mission. 

 

Why wouldn't this policy affect those children in a joint custody situation when half the time they live in a home where the parents are in a same sex relationship?  Do you think there will be exceptions made?

 

I think we're all speculating here.  I don't know that there's a way to participate in this thread without speculating.  Hopefully the church will clarify.  

[KevinG]

I don't believe it becomes easier at the age of 18, 

 

Not much.   But it does wait until the child is a legal adult, and more independent.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

And yet people are interpreting it as meaning someone with any gay married parent (even if they have another active parent) cannot be baptized as a youth.

 

O.K. I just read it.  The only restriction is that the youth not be living with the gay married parent at the time.  Which is very consistent with not asking a youth to make a serious covenant without the support structure and consistent teaching that are needed to support that covenant.

 

The same restriction that applies to children of Muslim parents, Polygamous parents, and other groups teaching and living in opposition to church doctrine.

 

But no one was freaking out until the gay marriage thing was clarified.

No you are not reading it. It says "The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage"

 

You can't share custody and you have to be of legal age. If you are a youth, you can't get baptized, or get ordained until you are of legal age. Its black and white.

 

The polygamy restriction has no comparable limitation.

[busybee]

Quite simple.  Don't ask children to take on serious covenants with eternal consequences, when their parent(s) teach and live the opposite of those laws.

I'm only quoting this to give it a rep point!!! Mine are all used up.

 

I'm amazed at how many people would be happy to put a child in a position that would cause confusion and spiritual pain and conflict. It would be abusive to knowingly put a child in such circumstances in any other arena.

[halconero]

Children of polygamists don't have to be 18. Children of polygamists don't need FP approval to go on missions, be ordained to the priesthood. Children of polygamists aren't forbidden from living in their parents houses as a condition to get baptized.

Completely untrue. My dad had to process several of these during his time as Bishop covering the Bountiful polygamous community.

[Buckeye]

I've read it.  I don't think it will be applied the same way that you believe it will be applied. 

 

How so? The policy says "child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, " So where the child lives does not matter. What the child does or believes does not matter. All that matters is that the SS parent lives in a relationship (cohabitation or marriage). 

[Steve-o]

I'm on the fence about a lot of things right now, but this goes too far. This policy makes me sad. Actually more than sad. I'm angry about this. I can't understand why my church would do this.

[stemelbow]

You're forgetting an important factor: how much of the gay population is in a cohabitating or marriage relationships. That's the part that's very small numbers...according to here 594,000 partnerships in the U.S. 2010 census data had a similar number...Of those, 115K of these had children. And that's for the whole U.S. population.  If you take 2% of that as mormon (which is the U.S. stat for mormon population and also not including activity level.), that's about 2.300 children. So thousands, yes probably. 10s of thousands....probably not. 

 

But as you mentioned it's not including blended/divorced families. The wording makes me wonder if they were even thinking of such when they made the policy (obvious cultural blinspot). That's why i'm guessing that the actual implimentation of said policy would vary from those who take the hard nose line as you've mentioned. And those who are more merciful, particularly to parents where the ex-partner in question doesn't have primary custody or isn't super involved in their lives.

 

with luv,

BD

Activity levels, or those who self-identify as Mormon puts this number lower. I'd imagine many gay couples and adults don't consider themselves Mormon even if they register on the membership records. Then you factor in how many of the children are really interested in being baptized and in Church, that number shrinks even more. That's just the US. Double that figure, because roughly half of the Church is in the US) then, at most we're around 4 or 5,000. But as I said, the other factors, I'd think would severely shrink that figure. I think 1,000 would be pushing it. But, even with that, 5,000 is probably a pretty minor number from the Church's perspective. 1,000 is even less.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Do you have a link to where the policy for children of polygamists is stated?  Or can you post it?  I think it would help to read through it (at least for me).

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66379-church-to-exclude-children-of-polygamist-couples/#entry1209556354

 

Children of parents who have practiced or are practicing plural marriage must receive approval from the First Presidency to be baptized. The mission president or bishop may request this approval when he is satisfied that the children (1) accept the teachings and doctrines of the Church and (2) repudiate the teachings upon which their parents based their practice of plural marriage. 

[busybee]

I realized I possible posted this on the wrong thread, so I'm reposting here....

 

Where is the outrage over similar restrictions on children of polygamous parents?  I believe the same restrictions apply to them as well.

 

The restrictions on children of polygamous parents have existed for decades.

 

I guess it is more popular to be outraged over the children of people whose behavior you approve of (homosexual marriage participants) rather than those you disapprove of (polygamous marriage participants).

 

jb